Second Circuit Establishes Practical Pleading Requirement Fo

The Second Circuit recently held that in order to state a claim for a prohibited transaction pursuant to ERISA section 406(a)(1)(C), it is not enough to allege that a fiduciary caused the plan to compensate a service provider for its services.

Related Keywords

, Supreme Court , Cornell University , Second Circuit , Tenth Circuits , Third Circuit , Seventh Circuit , Tenth Circuit , Ninth Circuits , Eighth Circuit , Ninth Circuit , Mondaq , Second Circuit Establishes Practical Pleading Requirement For Prohibited Transaction Claims Under Erisa Section 406a 1c , Employment And Hr , Employee Benefits Amp Compensation , Retirement , Uperannuation Amp Pensions ,